Superintendent Joe Meloche announced the postponement at Tuesday’s board of education work session meeting, stating the district has still not received preliminary eligible cost letters from the state on its projects.
The word frustration was used frequently in a period of 10 minutes at Tuesday’s Cherry Hill Board of Education work session meeting as district officials made an announcement about a major change for the district’s planned bond referendum.
Cherry Hill Public Schools’ bond referendum, initially slated for Oct. 2, has been postponed. Superintendent Joe Meloche announced the postponement during the strategic planning committee portion of the meeting.
Meloche attributed the postponement to a lack of response from the state Department of Education on the district’s project applications.
As of Tuesday’s meeting, Meloche said the district still had not received preliminary eligible cost for its projects, even though it had submitted its project applications on April 4.
In reference to state statutory guidelines, Meloche said the district had expected to receive a response from the state by July 4–90 days after the district submitted the projects.
According to state law, “Within 90 days of the commissioner’s receipt of a long-range facilities plan for review, the commissioner shall determine whether the plan is fully and accurately completed and whether all information necessary for a decision on the plan has been filed by the district. If the commissioner determines that the plan is complete, the commissioner shall promptly notify the district in writing and shall have 60 days from the date of that notification to determine whether to approve the plan or not. If the commissioner determines that the plan is not complete, the commissioner shall notify the district in writing.”
Meloche said the district had not received any response from that state by July 6.
“Unfortunately, the department has not met their own statutory guidelines,” he said. “It’s one of the most frustrating things we’ve been involved with the past few years.”
With less than two months remaining until the planned referendum date, Meloche said the district decided to postpone the vote.
“In order to have time to share comprehensive project information with the voters, the community and the board, the district believes it is the best course of action to postpone the referendum from Oct. 2,” he said.
The district has not yet announced a new date for the referendum. Meloche said there will be an update on the new date at the next board of education meeting on Aug. 28.
Meloche said district officials and officials from Becica Associates, the architecture firm for the district, have met with state officials about the projects.
Meloche also noted a meeting with the state Office of School Facilities on July 25, where Meloche said the district was promised it would receive application approvals in the form of preliminary cost letter by Aug. 7.
“Despite almost daily communication with the Office of School Facilities and several visits to the department from Becica Associates personnel in the weeks following the July 25 meeting, Aug. 7, 2018, came and went and no approvals were received,” Meloche said.
Department of Education spokesperson Michael Yaple previously stated in an email to The Sun that the department is still reviewing Cherry Hill’s project applications and noted the district’s applications would take some time to review. Both Yaple and Meloche said the state is reviewing how much the district will be reimbursed for some of the referendum projects.
“The department must review the Long Range Facilities Plans that each district is required to submit, it must ensure each project adheres to state regulations and specifications, and it must determine the district’s eligibility for receiving state funding,” Yaple said in an Aug. 8 email.
In a follow-up email sent to The Sun last Thursday, New Jersey Department of Education spokesperson Nicole Brossoie re-iterated Yaple’s comment from the previous week, saying, “…The Cherry Hill proposal is sizable. The process takes some time. It involves working with the district and its architects to assess the 18 individual projects, and meeting directly with the architects and representatives from the district. The NJDOE has been and will continue to be thorough and responsive to the district during the approval and implementation phases of the project.”
“The discussion right now is about which of the cost for the projects we’ll get partial reimbursement from the state,” Meloche said. “It’s not about whether or not they decided whether or not we need to replace the roof or put new windows.”
District officials have not discussed which proposed projects will be in the referendum, what the cost will be or what the tax impact would be. Meloche said the district needs to receive its preliminary cost information from the state before the board can move forward with approving the projects.
“Until the board adopts the resolution advertising the projects for the referendum, we can’t specifically advertise them to the public,” he said. “The board must take action first.”
“It’s frustrating for all of us,” board member Carol Matlack added. “It’s extremely frustrating and I’m sure it’s frustration for the community who want to know. It’s frustrating for us because we want to share all of that. It’s frustrating for the administrators who are spending a great deal of their time with the state trying to get some answers.”
To view a list of potential projects in the district’s planned bond referendum, visit www.chclc.org/bond.
